--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt 2008-08-08 17:12:18.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt 2008-08-08 17:12:18.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,21 +1,20 @@ Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) -Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel) -Expiration Date: January 14, 2009 +Expiration Date: February 8, 2009 - July 14, 2008 + August 8, 2008 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that @@ -26,38 +25,38 @@ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching - (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching required to - implied by the Ethernet services that have been defined in the - context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International - Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in - support of Ethernet private line service and Ethernet virtual private - line service. Support for MEF and ITU defined parameters are also - covered. Some of the extensions defined in this document are generic - in nature and not specific to Ethernet. + (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching implied by + the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the + Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union + (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private + line service and Ethernet virtual private line service. Support for + MEF and ITU defined parameters are also covered. Some of the + extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not + specific to Ethernet. Table of Contents 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1.1 Overview .................................................. 3 1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5 2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5 2.1 Ethernet Endpoint Identification .......................... 5 2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 6 2.2 Connection Identification ................................. 7 @@ -65,40 +64,31 @@ 2.3 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 7 2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................... 8 2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 9 3 EPL Service ............................................... 9 3.1 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 10 4 EVPL Service .............................................. 10 4.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 11 4.2 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 11 4.3 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 12 4.4 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 12 - 5 Generic GMPLS Extensions .................................. 12 - 5.1 Data Channel Switching .................................... 13 - 5.2 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 13 - 5.2.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 13 - 5.2.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 14 - 5.2.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 16 - 6 IANA Considerations ....................................... 17 - 6.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 17 - 6.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 17 - 6.3 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 17 - 6.4 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 18 - 6.5 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 18 - 7 Security Considerations ................................... 18 - 8 References ................................................ 19 - 8.1 Normative References ...................................... 19 - 8.2 Informative References .................................... 20 - 9 Acknowledgments ........................................... 21 -10 Author's Addresses ........................................ 21 -11 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 21 -12 Intellectual Property ..................................... 22 + 5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 12 + 5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 13 + 5.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 13 + 6 Security Considerations ................................... 13 + 7 References ................................................ 13 + 7.1 Normative References ...................................... 13 + 7.2 Informative References .................................... 14 + 8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 15 + 9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 15 +10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 16 +11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 16 1. Introduction [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network- oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks. The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both @@ -108,41 +98,31 @@ [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the underlying technology used to support the service. For example, [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types of switching that may directly support these services and provides a method for GMPLS based control of such switching technologies. This document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) reference points. See [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] for a description of the UNI reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters - defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. - - Some of the extensions defined in this document are generic in nature - and not specific to Ethernet, or [MEF6] and [G.8011] related - switching. [AUTHORS' NOTE: These extensions are presented in a - separate section and may be split into their own document as this - work progresses.] + defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] and the generic extensions defined in + [GMPLS-EXT]. 1.1. Overview - This document uses a largely common approach to supporting the - switching implied by the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], - [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS - mechanisms to deliver the required control capabilities. This - document reuses the GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and - [RFC4974]. The document also expands expands the set of signaling - parameters in a fashion consistent with existing GMPLS signaling. - - [AUTHORS' NOTE: As mentioned above, several extensions defined in - this document are generic in nature and may be moved into their own - document as this work progresses.] + This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching + implied by the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] and + [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to + deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the + GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document + uses the extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT]. Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to- multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011] also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further study." Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point- to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE @@ -180,24 +160,22 @@ supported in signaling include: - Endpoint identifiers - Connection identifiers - Traffic parameters (see [ETH-TRAFFIC]) - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only) - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only) Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. - Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EVPL services - are described in Section 4. Section 5 covers the generic GMPLS - extensions proposed by this document. + are described in Section 4. 1.2. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Common Signaling Support This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS @@ -416,21 +394,21 @@ EPL Service LSP Encoding Type ----------- ----------------- Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471] Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) (TBA by IANA) The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- - Switching Type DCSC (See Section 5.2) + Switching Type DCSC [GMPLS-EXT] G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471] The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching. 4. EVPL Service @@ -442,32 +420,32 @@ or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular LSP (Ethernet connection). The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL connections are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- - Switching Type TBD [NOTE: use of L2SC under discussion] + Switching Type TBD [NOTE: under discussion] LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) G-PID Ethernet (33) As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching. LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized - Channel_Set Label Objects per Section 5.2. A notable implication of + Channel_Set Label Objects per [GMPLS-EXT]. A notable implication of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non- fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in Section 4.4. 4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format Bundled EVPL services requires the use of a service specific label, @@ -491,326 +469,110 @@ VLAN ID: 12 bits A VLAN identifier. 4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not - support both bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping MUST - be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control + support either bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping + MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003]. When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP. 4.3. Single Call - Single LSP For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically, - per Section 5.3, make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to - modify the Channel_Set LABEL object. + [GMPLS-EXT], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify + the Channel_Set LABEL object. 4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call / EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects. All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209]. Make-before-break procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs. To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures. -5. Generic GMPLS Extensions - - This section presents extensions to GMPLS that, while motivated by - EPL and EVPL service, are generic in nature and may be useful to any - switching technology controlled via GMPLS. - - [AUTHORS' NOTE: The extensions presented in this section and may be - split into one or more independent documents as this work - progresses.] - -5.1. Data Channel Switching - - Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471] - and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot - (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities. One type of - switching that is not well represented in this current set switching - that takes all data received on an ingress port and switches it - through a network to an egress port. While there are similarities - between this level of switching and the "opaque single wavelength" - case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such port-to-port - switching is not limited to the optical switching technology implied - by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined. - - The new switching type is called Data Channel Switching Capable - (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive name, but it collides - with PSC so isn't used.) DCSC interfaces are able to support - switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel - interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support multiple channels, - e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded - from this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single - digital channel are included. Examples include concatenated TDM and - line encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when - they support switching on an interface granularity. - - DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the - value TBA (by IANA). - - Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs - signaled using the DCSC Switching Type. - -5.2. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats - - This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates - related objects. This section updates the label related definitions - of [RFC3473]. The ability to communicate more than one label as part - of the same LSP was motivated by the support for the communication of - one or more VLAN IDs, but the formats defined in this section are not - technology specific and may be useful for other switching - technologies. - -5.2.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object - - The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate - that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the - associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set - LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST - object and uses of C-Type of TBA. - -5.2.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object - - The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more - labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path - associated with a single LSP. The format of the Generalized - Channel_Set LABEL Object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined in - [RFC3473]. It differs from the the LABEL_SET object in that the full - set may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple - objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The object MUST - be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST - object. The object MUST be processed per [RFC3473]. Make-before- - break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the - Channel_Set LABEL object. - - The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is: - - o eneralized Channel_Set LABEL object: Class = 16, C-Type = TBA (By - IANA) - - 0 1 2 3 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Channel_Set Sub-Object 1 | - | ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - : : : - : : : - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Channel_Set Sub-Object N | - | ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always - be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format: - - 0 1 2 3 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Subchannel 1 | - | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... | : - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : - : : : - : : : - : : : - : : : - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Subchannel N | - | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... | Padding | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Action: 8 bits - - See [RFC3471] for definition of actions. Range actions SHOULD - be used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set - LABEL Object. - - Number of Subchannels: 10 bits - - Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the sub-object. - When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of - the field, i.e., 1024, multiple Channel_Set Sub-Objects MUST be - used. Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a - Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. - See section 4.4 for an example of how this case may be handled. - - A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in - either the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0) - is used in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that - the subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or - upstream) direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the - reverse directions label object. When value of zero (0) is - used, no Subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Sub-Object - and only one Channel_Set Sub-Object may be present. The zero - (0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL - object of the same LSP. - - Label Type: 14 bits - - See [RFC3473] for a description of this field. - - Subchannel: Variable - - See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this - field may not be 32 bit aligned. - - Padding: Variable - - Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub- - Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated - above. The field is only required when the Subchannel field is - not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields - result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. - - The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits - represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a - Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not - being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST - have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit - aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero - (0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. - These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit - nodes. - -5.2.3. Other Label related Objects - - The previous section introduces a new LABEL object. As such the - formats of the other label related objects are also impacted. - Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their - respective specifications. The other label related objects are - defined in [RFC3473] and include: - - SUGGESTED_LABEL object - - LABEL_SET object - - ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object - - UPSTREAM_LABEL object - - RECOVERY_LABEL object - -6. IANA Considerations +5. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. -6.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV +5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters: Type Name Reference ---- ----------- --------- 2* Endpoint ID [This document] (*) Suggested value. -6.2. Line LSP Encoding +5.2. Line LSP Encoding Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] (*) Suggested value. -6.3. Data Channel Switching Type - - Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in - the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" - registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- - parameters: - - Value Type Reference - ----- --------------------------- --------- - 125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document] - - (*) Suggested value. - -6.4. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object - - Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in - the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the - "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at - http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. - - A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number - (19) with the following definition: - - Class Types or C-Types: - - 5* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] - - (*) Suggested value. - -6.5. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object - - Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in - the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the - "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at - http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. - - A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16) - with the following definition: - - Class Types or C-Types: - - 4* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] - - (*) Suggested value. - -7. Security Considerations +6. Security Considerations This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations. -8. References +7. References -8.1. Normative References +7.1. Normative References [ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-05.txt, Work in progress, July 12, 2008. + [GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., + "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching + Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt, + Work in Progress, August 2008. + [GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-02.txt, Work in progress, July 2008. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., @@ -819,117 +581,104 @@ [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. - [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label - Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October - 2004. - [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. - [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing - Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol - Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. - [4420BIS] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt, Work in progress, May 27, 2008, [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007. -8.2. Informative References +7.2. Informative References [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004. [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line service", August 2004. [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line service", September 2005. [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI)", Work in Progress, - draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt, - February 2008. + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt, + August 2008. [MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services [MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006. [MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004. [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S., Eds, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. -9. Acknowledgments +8. Acknowledgments - The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch and Stephen Shew for - their valuable comments. + Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to + this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document. -10. Author's Addresses + The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav + Cohen for their valuable comments. + +9. Author's Addresses Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Email: lberger@labn.net - - Dimitri Papadimitriou - Alcatel Lucent - Francis Wellesplein 1, - B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium - Phone: +32 3 240-8491 - Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be - Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-288-3041 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com -11. Full Copyright Statement +10. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. -12. Intellectual Property +11. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -944,11 +693,11 @@ any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). -Generated on: Mon Jul 14 12:19:42 EDT 2008 +Generated on: Fri Aug 8 09:53:58 EDT 2008